Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Chris Rodda has the details on an appalling but all too familiar situation in the military, where an entire unit was marched to a Christian concert, ostensibly given the right not to attend, but then those who chose not to were punished for failing to do so.
For the past several years, two U.S. Army posts in Virginia, Fort Eustis and Fort Lee, have been putting on a series of what are called Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts. As I've written in a number of other posts, "spiritual fitness" is just the military's new term for promoting religion, particularly evangelical Christianity. And this concert series is no different.On May 13, 2010, about eighty soldiers, stationed at Fort Eustis while attending a training course, were punished for opting out of attending one of these Christian concerts. The headliner at this concert was a Christian rock band called BarlowGirl, a band that describes itself as taking "an aggressive, almost warrior-like stance when it comes to spreading the gospel and serving God."
She shows the complaint MRFF received from one of the soldiers who opted out of the concert and was subsequently punished:
"The week prior to the event the [unit name and NCO's name withheld] informed us of a Christian rock event that was about to take place on Thursday the 13th."On Thursday 13th at 1730 we were informed that instead of being dismissed for the day, the entire company (about 250 soldiers) would march as a whole to the event. Not only that, but to make sure that everyone is present we were prohibited from going back to the barracks (to eliminate the off chance that some might 'hide' in their rooms and not come back down).
"We were marched as a whole to chow and were instructed to reform outside the dining facility. A number of soldiers were disappointed and restless. Several of us were of different faith or belief. A couple were particularly offended (being of Muslim faith) and started considering to disobey the order.
"From the dining facility we were marched back to the company area. There was a rumor circulating that we may be given a choice later on to fall out or attend. Though it was only a rumor it was also a small hope enough to allow us to follow along a little longer before choosing to become disobedient. We were marched back to the company area. To our dismay there was still no sign of as having a choice.
"We started marching to the theater. At that point two Muslim soldiers fell out of formation on their own. Student leadership tried to convince them to fall back in and that a choice will be presented to us once we reach the theater.
"At the theater we were instructed to split in two groups; those that want to attend versus those that don't. At that point what crossed my mind is the fact that being given an option so late in the game implies that the leadership is attempting to make a point about its intention. The 'body language' was suggesting that 'we marched you here as a group to give you a clue that we really want you to attend (we tilt the table and expect you to roll in our direction), now we give you the choice to either satisfy us or disappoint us.' A number of soldiers seemed to notice these clues and sullenly volunteered for the concert in fear of possible consequences.
"Those of us that chose not to attend (about 80, or a little less that half) were marched back to the company area. At that point the NCO issued us a punishment. We were to be on lock-down in the company (not released from duty), could not go anywhere on post (no PX, no library, etc). We were to go to strictly to the barracks and contact maintenance. If we were caught sitting in our rooms, in our beds, or having/handling electronics (cell phones, laptops, games) and doing anything other than maintenance, we would further have our weekend passes revoked and continue barracks maintenance for the entirety of the weekend. At that point the implied message was clear in my mind 'we gave you a choice to either satisfy us or disappoint us. Since you chose to disappoint us you will now have your freedoms suspended and contact chores while the rest of your buddies are enjoying a concert.'
"At that evening, nine of us chose to pursue an EO complaint. I was surprised to find out that a couple of the most offended soldiers were actually Christian themselves (Catholic). One of them was grown as a child in Cuba and this incident enraged him particularly as it brought memories of oppression."
A second soldier described similar events and said that many people in the unit chose to attend due to pressure from superiors:
"At the theater is the first time our options were presented to us. And they were presented to us in a way that seemed harmless, we could either go to the show, or go to the barracks. But at that point, I felt pressured. As a person, I know that I can't be pressured into anything, I'm much stronger than that. But I also know that a lot of people aren't that strong, and that pressure was present. I could hear people saying, 'I don't know about going back to the barracks, that sounds suspicious, I'm going to go ahead and go to the show' and many things that sounded a lot like that. Now, like I said, I don't get pressured into things, but I also don't think that anybody should have to feel that kind of pressure. Making somebody feel that pressure is a violation of human rights, we are allowed to think what we want about religion and not have to feel pressured into doing things, and at that moment there was definitely pressure to go to that concert simply because people don't want to have their free time taken away."
This is exactly how unit commanders coerce soldiers under their command to attend events like this. You don't have to go, but if you don't we're going to give you some noxious chores so you'll think twice about not going the next time. But I'm sure JD will be along to tell us why this is all perfectly okay with him.
Politics
Comments
Since at least two of the individuals punished for not attending are Catholic, I wonder if Vice President Biden might be interested in the incident?
fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: fusilier | August 20, 2010 11:49 AM
My initial suspicion was correct, those are both training posts. Fits in with my own Basic and AIT experience, where the trainees were given a choice between going to church and cleaning the barracks on sundays.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | August 20, 2010 11:51 AM
This is a hint of what would happen if the USA became a theocracy. History proves that Christians in power make shariah a piece of cake by comparison.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | August 20, 2010 11:54 AM
I've already read about this, so I knew enough to hate it in the first place. But there was one key bit of missing information in the previous rundowns.
BarlowGirl?
BarlowGirl!
Religious BS aside, this would be, roughly, the equivalent of making a bunch of soldiers attend a Miley Cyrus concert. I used to work in the music section of a Christian book store and I hated BarlowGirl. They make terrible music, even by CCM and teen pop standards.
Posted by: Geds | August 20, 2010 11:54 AM
The first article I read pointing to this started off with something along the lines of "You will not believe this horrifying story..." and I was thinking "oh I'm sure it's more sky is falling hyperbole" ... until I read it. Could this be a more egregious violation? I can't see myself join the military for reasons like this. If something like this happened at my job, I would quit on the spot.
Posted by: Dennis N | August 20, 2010 11:55 AM
I just went to the BarLow Girls website -- that was one of the groups appearing, according to Chris Rodda's article. It was embarrassing. OK, I'm old. I admit I don't understand teenage girl silliness. I'm not sure I understood it when I was a teenaged girl -- but really, this is who is entertaining our troops? They sound like every singer/group there is with female voices on the Disney Channel. Are our armed forces now made up of those 16 and under?
As for the rest, as a Christian, I am appalled. As a citizen of the United States, I am furious. How dare they? Have they no shame? No, they don't. As I know, people like Chris are all too familiar with this miserable mind set. That's why she continues to write about it.
Those who punished soldiers for not attending this "entertainment" would no doubt have been happier living under Constantine.
Posted by: Ellie | August 20, 2010 11:58 AM
Truly horrible stuff.
It's interesting that when people talk about an army of God waging a spiritual war, they rarely talk about how this army is formed; apparently group pressure and top-down pressure is a massive part.
Posted by: Coryat | August 20, 2010 11:58 AM
So what you're saying Geds, is that both options were punishments?
Posted by: Dennis N | August 20, 2010 11:59 AM
So what you're saying Geds, is that both options were punishments?
Yeah. I think I'd feel less dirty after latrine duty, though...
Posted by: Geds | August 20, 2010 12:08 PM
Let me play the devil's advocate here. If you think about it, we overrule each of the soldiers' rights already. We don't allow them freedom of speech, since we constrain what they can say and read, and even censor their mail. We don't allow them freedom of assembly, since we put them in units and forbid them to leave. We don't let them have their fourth amendment rights since their superiors can search their property at any time. We don't even give their second amendment rights, sinc requiring them to carry guns is as big a violation as forbidding them to.
Now, why is that one clause of the first amendment about freedom of religion so special? We already deny our armed forces their most basic rights. Why not go one right farther? I know you might say that those other violations are necessary for the function of a military, but I'm sure the commanders would say being Christian is necessary to being a good soldier.
I don't agree with this, and I why force-converting our soldiers to Christianity is a horrible idea, but how do we answer that argument? Why haven't we seen it?
Posted by: Duke York | August 20, 2010 12:10 PM
"Spiritual Fitness." Wow.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2010 12:13 PM
Superior officers, treating their soldiers like garbage and trying to shove christianity down their throats?
They don't showcase that in the recruitment commercials.
Posted by: Wenak | August 20, 2010 12:16 PM
That is a tough question at #10, but I'm sure someone here will provide case law that easily solves it.
I think it has to do with the establishment of a religion. By taking away the rights of soldiers, they are doing it on an individual basis: searches, clamping down on speech, etc. Whereas forcing Christianity has the effect of establishing a religion for the whole of the government.
Hey, I tried.
Posted by: Dennis N | August 20, 2010 12:28 PM
For the "how bad can it get" responses:
Seriously? They were "only" put on barracks maintenance for the duration of the "concert."
Apparently the brass is still walking carefully here, which in turn means that they know that they're on thin ice. Because otherwise they'd dial up the pressure to make real examples by (for instance) canceling leave while the attendees took off, or potentially doing something on the record.
So far, they're still being careful to avoid a paper trail. Inconvenient for the MRFF since it turns the whole affair into a "griping in the ranks" vs. "chain of command" dispute, but if I were Mikey I'd take what comfort I could from the thought. Then go for the throat anyway, of course.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 20, 2010 12:35 PM
I sort of agree with Duke York. compared to everything else we put soldiers through, this is a very minor issue. I'm not just referring to loss of basic constitutional rights, but also to the whole "killing people because we say so" thing. Especially ironic after they lure them in with recruiting slogans like "an army of one".
"Oh, you thought you meant like an special individual snowflake? no, think more along the lines of the Borg."
Posted by: mousedude | August 20, 2010 12:39 PM
#10 - Creating the perception that the US military is an arm of a Christian theocracy would completely preclude any cooperation with other theocracies (say, the Muslim ones we're on not-very-good terms with) and totally undermines our argument that democracy and liberalism are a superior form of society.
Posted by: schism | August 20, 2010 12:40 PM
Duke,
You answer it by saying that they DO have freedom of speech and assembly (and religion) when it doesn't interfere with military orders. This was not an order - the commander explicitly said it was voluntary.
If the military needs to restrict soldiers' freedoms for some mission - even a training mission - then they can do that by issuing an order. The fundies can't, obviously, do that in this case because no one will buy that it is mission-critical to go to a christian concert event. So they resort to this "not-an-order order" crap.
Posted by: eric | August 20, 2010 12:42 PM
The military's rights to control it's members are similar to that of a corporation and it's employees. You can ban the dissemination of trade secrets, search belongings on company property, etc.
The military can argue a compelling interest for their policies (hopefully). E.g. censorship is for operational security---i.e. not getting shot.
Posted by: Snarkyxanf | August 20, 2010 12:42 PM
When I was in basic (admittedly, 1983) we were told that sunday mornings we could either stay in the barracks on cleanup detail, or go to church. The church must have been full of good snoring christians on those occasions but I'm not sure because I preferred to clean toilets. What really hurt was when one of the training cadre found a book in my gear and threw it away. Reading was not an approved activity unless it was the bible, he said.
It's worse than it appears because the military are the tip of the iceberg - they are basically protecting a small army of missionaries and christian contractors. When I recently visited UAE, my flights to/from Dubai were packed with contractors and mushbrained missionaries respectively going to the middle east to cash in on the gravy train or thump the bible at the heathens in Afghanistan and Iraq. To say that it was horrifying is an understatement. In the US virtually nobody understands how bad it is, but on the ground, the "ayrabs" know exactly what is going on and - surprise, surprise - are a bit resentful of it.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 20, 2010 12:48 PM
aside from the soldiers' rights being violated, i feel concerned about how this bogus 'entertainment' is being paid for.
are my atheist tax dollars paying for this crap?!?!
Posted by: jdub | August 20, 2010 12:49 PM
The "choice" the soldiers were given seems strangely reminiscent of the emphasis many Christians make on God giving everybody a "choice" to believe in Him or not. You see, He doesn't force you to believe in Him by providing everyone with the kind of unambiguous evidence that would convince anyone. Instead, He gives you the freedom to choose other beliefs -- after which you will be sent to Hell to burn forever. But you had a choice. A free choice: do X, or accept the dire consequences.
By the same token, Attila the Hun gave everyone the free choice of bowing to him, or not. Those who didn't bow got their heads chopped off, but you can't say he didn't leave both options open. There's no force, with only one available alternative -- it's just that you can't avoid the consequences of your choice. In which case, these soldiers also have no right to complain.
Same sort of reasoning, I think.
Posted by: Sastra | August 20, 2010 12:49 PM
What is this a vacation resort or something? They let people fall out of formation and disobey orders and hide in their rooms and stuff? What the heck is going on.
Posted by: 386sx | August 20, 2010 12:49 PM
What do you mean, "put through"? They signed up for that.
What they did not sign up for was to have their command violate the First Amendment, when part of their signing up (both command perps and enlisted victims) was swearing an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution. The entire command should be cashiered.
Posted by: Cynical | August 20, 2010 12:50 PM
Snarkyxanf has the correct answer to Duke York's question. Yes, those in the military do have extra restrictions that civilians do not have, but this is because of their unique position and the requires of military operation. There is no similar justification for pushing religion on them. In fact, the opposite is true. Pushing Christianity on soldiers who are not Christians undermines the military need for unit cohesion by creating religious divisions where they can only cause harm.
There is also the matter of the Establishment Clause. The government cannot enforce religious rules of this type even if there was no corresponding individual right at stake.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 20, 2010 12:50 PM
BTW - isn't it trainee abuse to make trainees listen to that kind of musical dreck? Christians are pathetic; they used to produce musical talents like Handel and Beethoven and now they're stuck with flup like Creed and whatever the popchart monster PR agents are pushing this week.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 20, 2010 12:53 PM
At least currently (since 2003), I believe it violates general order #1.
Posted by: Dennis N | August 20, 2010 1:00 PM
This is common in Basic, AIT, and army schools...airborne, wlc, air assault, and etc. All the concerts/shows/whatevers are commonly cover ups for christian activities. All christian bands pop, country, or the holiday shows...bleh the holiday shows. Oh and by the way while at the events you could get real food and drinks as opposed to just the chow hall garbage, that's how they bolster the numbers to make it look like people want to go. Offer the concerts on one side and the food and drink on the other...see which gets more traffic then.
Same with Sundays, go to church, some church or clean the barracks. Fortunately the Islamic classes, not a real mosque I don't believe, was run by a cool ex-drill. He broke it down into three groups, practicing Muslims, people who were interested in talking about Islamic beliefs, and those that wanted to sleep. Went to bat too when the drills tried to tell us we couldn't have the whole time for the Islamic sessions because they ran longer than the christian ones.
Posted by: Laen | August 20, 2010 1:19 PM
but I'm sure the commanders would say being Christian is necessary to being a good soldier.
I never met a commander who said that. Hell, I never even met a chaplain who said that (admittedly I retired in 2000. It appears things have changed for the worse).
Posted by: Shay | August 20, 2010 1:26 PM
I'm reminded of a line that I think I first read attributed to a marine Drill Sergeant in the WWII era, "Your soul may belong to Jesus, but your ass belongs to me."
Without agreeing at all I can see a sort of internal consistency to the church or chores in the barracks on sunday mornings choice.
From a certain point of view, the soldiers getting up and going to church on Sunday morning aren't getting the morning off so anyone who stays home isn't going to get the morning off either. If you're in the barracks your ass belongs to the army and you're going to be doing work, even just makework. If you choose to go to church you're doing "soul work" (or whatever). Just letting those who don't go to church sleep in their racks would be unfair.
Like I said, I don't agree, but it has a certain internal consistency. Even that becomes much harder to justify when you're talking about a concert on a random Thursday night and even harder given the bizarre way the choice was presented to the soldiers and the additional instructions regarding punishment if the were caught doing anything other than maintenance work.
Posted by: Ben P | August 20, 2010 1:28 PM
I guess no one here even gave it a thought that this whole thing is bull?
Posted by: rick | August 20, 2010 2:08 PM
I thought the officers vowed to protect and defend the constitution.
Posted by: Paen | August 20, 2010 2:13 PM
"If you choose to go to church you're doing "soul work" (or whatever). Just letting those who don't go to church sleep in their racks would be unfair."
But doing "soul work," as you put it, is a private personal matter between one's self and God, not the government's business. Staying in reading Walt Whitman or practicing tai chi is also "soul work." Why not allot time off which just happens to coincide with church time and people could do what they want including the option of church?
The option of Sunday work detail vs. worship detail would only be fair if applied to Jews and Seventhday Adventists.
Posted by: Bill in NC | August 20, 2010 2:13 PM
Marcus Ranum @ 25:
Christian Rock creeps me the hell out. It always has this sound- it's difficult to define, but it's a kind of whiny wholesomeness that is the exact antithesis of what rock is. I think it's trying to sound poignant, but it always just sounds lame.
I saw a music video on youtube that was a cover of Joy Division's Disorder by some crappy Christian Rock band. I can see why they chose the song and I suppose I could give them props for picking something slightly cooler than the usual Christian fare, but I think I had the same visceral reaction to it as I would have had if I'd opened a casket.
Ben P:
Yes, they are. They are spending time on a personal activity. That is the definition of "time off".
Posted by: Leni | August 20, 2010 2:23 PM
No, we agree. It's bullsh&% that they should have to go to a religious event or be punished. And illegal.
Posted by: Dennis N | August 20, 2010 2:28 PM
This kind of thing looks to be dubious legally and detrimental to troop morale as well. I wonder if the commanders in question do it for other types of concerts — like, say, the Indigo Girls. I very much doubt it.
On a tangentially related note, I learned yesterday that Colorado Springs, home of the Air Force Academy and well known bastion of conservative politics and Christianity, is in deep economic trouble due to its government espousing anti-tax doctrines.
http://www.economybeat.org/taxes/colorado-springs-city-of-the-future/
I've heard from other sources that, for example, residents have to pay to keep their street lights on, and that the police don't work 24/7 any more; you can call and leave a recorded message in case of trouble.
Posted by: Chris Winter | August 20, 2010 2:32 PM
I thought the line used to be that it was rock and roll itself was the corrupting factor.I guess if you can't beat it join it.I've heard the genre described as bad music, worse religion not making Christianity better but definitely making music worse.The fact that fundigelicals feel they can get by with this sort of thing aided and abetted by a military beholden to those wingnut elements currently held in thrall by the fundigelicals does not make me any more confident in the military.
Posted by: donquijoterocket | August 20, 2010 2:36 PM
Just to pile on re: Duke's question - all those other infringements on rights can be supported by military necessity per regulations. Forced proselytization not only cannot be justified, it specifically violates the regs.
And, Dennis, GO#1 is a CENTCOM order. Doesn't apply to TRADOC commands like Ft. Eustis. Other regs do, though, if Mikey and Chris can implant a pair into Army leadership and get them to bring charges.
Posted by: BobApril | August 20, 2010 2:38 PM
@25 The Christians can have Handel but Beethoven had his fingers in a few religious pies and never bothered to attend Sunday Mass. Haydn even considered him an atheist.
Posted by: Marie-Annick | August 20, 2010 2:49 PM
Looks like some officers need to face court martial. Violating the rights of soldiers in service of your personal religious beliefs is detrimental to the mission of the military and in opposition to the constitution that all military personnel take an oath to defend.
Enough is enough. Throw some of these clowns in the brig and drum them out of the service and maybe that will make the next evangelical officer think twice about abusing his commission and violating his oath by imposing his religious delusions on his subordinates.
Posted by: Lance | August 20, 2010 2:55 PM
fusilier @1:
I prefer James 2:25, just because of the fertile possibility of double entendre. That James 2:1-26 points out that respecting a human -- before respecting sky-man/jeebus is bad kinda undercuts your point, since the NCO (he might argue) was following the advice in James 2 especially at verses 1, 9, and 26.
mercurianferret
Surah 5, verse 32
Posted by: mercurianferret | August 20, 2010 2:59 PM
First off, I'm not saying it excuses this at all, I'm just offering a hypothetical argument on the church vs chores thing.
That said:
YOU view it as personal activity.
But if someone honestly and truly believes as the apocryphal quote says "Your soul belongs to jesus" and they're obligated perform certain duties, is that personal time or just doing work for a different master?
and honestly I really have no clue how the military dealt with observant orthodox Jews in basic training, but I doubt they were given special light duty on Saturdays.
Posted by: Ben P | August 20, 2010 3:06 PM
Fort Eustis' website has a facility to report crimes.
I'm just saying.
Posted by: Jon H | August 20, 2010 3:41 PM
But if someone honestly and truly believes as the apocryphal quote says "Your soul belongs to jesus" and they're obligated perform certain duties, is that personal time or just doing work for a different master?
Its personal time off. If a soldier honestly and truly believes they're obligated to perform certain duties for their spouse and children, and they take time away from the army to do it, that's time off too, right? Why does God get a bye?
Now, I CAN understand how this accommodation may have come about without any intent to give preferential treatment. My guess is that the military would love to give no time off at all for services if they could get away with it, and have everyone working on Sunday mornings, but morale issues probably force them to grudgingly give up the time. So it probably originated as "we'll give Joe there time to go to his services because if we don't we're going to have a revolt on our hands...but you stay and clean toilets, because that's what we'd make Joe do too if we could." My guess is this originated not as a taking-away of free time away from atheists but rather being forced to give up Army time for the devoutly religious.
Posted by: eric | August 20, 2010 3:50 PM
Ben, I'm not attacking you. I know it was a hypothetical.
Still, it is not just me that sees it as a personal activity. The army views it that way, at least officially, as well. That is why they can't force you to attend religious services, because it is a personal decision to practice religion. Since practicing religion is not a requirement for service or duty, it is necessarily a personal activity.
Posted by: Leni | August 20, 2010 3:54 PM
Sorry, I should have said "the military" instead of "the army".
Posted by: Leni | August 20, 2010 3:57 PM
I say those 80 soldiers should have stayed... and booed.
Posted by: Tom | August 20, 2010 4:09 PM
And Obama's comment?
(fake..)
"While I won't talk about the wisdom of the punishments, the US Army is definately acting within its rights to remove such luxuries"
Posted by: Buffoon | August 20, 2010 5:09 PM
This post definitely strikes a chord with me.
In Basic we were expected to be doing barracks maintenance if we didn't go to some sort of service on Sundays, as others have mentioned. Whether or not that happened depended entirely on which Drill Sergeant was on duty that morning but usually we were working.
In AIT we had some events like this but they weren't all religious in nature. Some were purely propaganda efforts. I chose not to be part of the Army's crowd at the Alamobowl one year and got to spend 6 hours standing in the cold on guard duty instead. Fun times.
I recently completed a year in Iraq. The first day I was in the unit I had to meet with the Chaplain as part of in-processing. I figured that would go pretty quickly. He asked me my religious preference and I answered none. Somehow that got translated as non-denominational christian and I got handed a stack of literature including a New Testament. While we were downrange, he sent out mass e-mails to the entire unit almost every day. There was no way to opt out. They didn't always cross the line into proselytizing but often did. I managed to archive every one of those messages just in case I decide to do something about it.
The Army seems to think that spiritual fitness is an important and real thing, separate from mental or emotional fitness. It's the default assumption and is codified in our FMs and ARs. I cannot thank the MRFF enough for the work they do.
Posted by: sdej | August 20, 2010 5:12 PM
I am curious as to the involvement of the unit's senior chaplain in all of this. I suspect that he/she was either complicit or too cowardly to step up and inform the commanding officer about the illegality of what was happening. Of course, stories like this do not surprise me. As I have said on this blog several times, "The situation will get worse before it ever gets better." It does little or no good to point out that these zealous chaplains are violating the rights of those who do not think and worship as they do. They see no moral or ethical problems with being "liars for Jesus." The last 7 years of my active duty career I served as Command Chaplain for 2 of the largest bases in the Navy. At both places, the fundamentalist nuts had taken over with the complete cooperation of the command chaplains. I am not the least bit ashamed that I immediately put a stop to that foolishness. I used my position and my rank to provide service and support for all hands, regardless of religious preferences or non-preference. I briefed the Commanding Officers on a regular basis, warned them about religious encroachments and violations and in every case they appreciated it and supported me. The zealous civilian fundamental and evangelical groups that had proliferated on the bases were easy to get rid of. When I cut off the financial support from religious offering funds and base contracts, they disappeared like rats off a burning ship. Of course, I got the reputation of being a "radical" and a "hard core" sort of guy. Some of the civilian zealots even went so far as to label me as an "enemy of the gospel."
Once again, I am telling you that it will get worse, not better. The Chaplain Corps is basically void of any kind of strong leadership. I remember how embarrassed I was when one of our Chiefs of Chapains visited a Marine General to defend the actions of a chaplain. The General said to the Chief of Chaplains, "You are worthless and he is worthless. Please leave and take your chaplain with you. My junior Marines demonstrate more leadership and moral backbone than you and your chaplain." And on another occasion, a Marine General said to me, "The Chaplain Corps is the biggest den of two-faced, back-biting vipers that I have ever seen during my career as a Marine officer."
It's time to take a long, hard look at whether or not we need to continue to fund any of the Chaplain Corps as they now exist. I am more and more in favor of closing them down and bringing on more licensed social workers to provide counseling and guidance.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | August 20, 2010 5:14 PM
I assume they think the non-believing (or incorrectly believing) soldiers will be "saved" at events like this.
Unfortunately, when performing this mental calculation they forget that getting saved at a Christian pop concert counts as evidence against the existence of God. True story.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 20, 2010 6:44 PM
Duke York #10:
In addition to the points others have made in response to your post, as regards this, I would say that, if any commander did say this, it would be clearly false. Why? Four words, found in the Bible:
Thou shalt not kill.
Posted by: Zmidponk | August 20, 2010 7:20 PM
The Bible also includes the steps to work around that nasty commandment, Zmidponk.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | August 20, 2010 8:09 PM
It was your dumb ass that joined the US military. What the hell did you expect? You thought it was going to be like in the commercials?
Posted by: Juice | August 20, 2010 9:56 PM
Ummm... how about not a revival meeting?
Posted by: DaveL | August 20, 2010 10:20 PM
My one trip to the holy roller nutbag joint at Lackland creeped me out. I went to the Catholic service twice. Then I volunteered to do dorm guard duty on Sunday mornings. I was praised for my "initiative." It meant I didn't have to do it again all week. Woo hoo!
Posted by: Aquaria | August 21, 2010 12:25 AM
A couple were particularly offended (being of Muslim faith) and stated considering to disobey the order.
Sure let's have a mutiny because the "Jesus cooties" might get us. Why not...
A Muslim mutiny. Sounds fantastic...
Posted by: 386sx | August 21, 2010 1:07 AM
A Muslim mutiny. Sounds fantastic...
There is nothing new under the Sun.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 21, 2010 1:13 AM
A Muslim mutiny. Sounds fantastic...
Are you forgetting there is a wave of Islamophobia going through America right now?
Posted by: Dale Husband | August 21, 2010 1:46 AM
As far as I can tell from the stuff White American soldiers post on the web - they only own 4 cd's each : Ramstein, Slipknot, Slayer and "country hits of the 90's".
Posted by: Andy | August 21, 2010 1:55 AM
D.C. Sessions - One small point, some sepoys were Muslims, others were Hindus. Neither liked the new Enfield ammo, because of the fact it was greased.
Muslims thought the ammo was greased with lard (pork fat), Hindus thought it was greased with tallow (beef fat)*. This was the proximal cause of the rebellion.
Overall, however, there was no central religious motivation, issues of nationality, caste, tradition, pay and mere opportunism were also involved. - Dingo
----
* They were, in actuality, greased with non-animal fats.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 21, 2010 2:05 AM
Is a lam a phobia?? I dunno! Is a da pope a catholic!!
(Sorry I was watching Marx brothers clips again. So sorry...)
Posted by: 386sx | August 21, 2010 2:14 AM
mousedude,
I disagree. I did about 12 years, half of that on active duty and a peculiar thing about having most of everything taken from you is you hold on VERY tightly to the few things you do have.
You are right, the army takes most rights from you You fall into a very specific organized system and all that you are allowed to keep is your thoughts. What comes out of you most anytime you wear the uniform is as a representative of the military and thus very tightly governed on what you can say or do.
Most everything you are asked to do most normal humans would immediately complain and say "oh here comes the bullshit" but you are trained to just "yes sir"
It is fundamental that you be allowed to still know its bull shit. Its essential you still see things through your eyes and simply let the uniform be an output filter.
With that said, its a dangerous line you walk when you do trample on the last right of soldiers. Our thoughts, our religion or lackthereof and our values are the only things that attach us to humanity. The things that make us say, "sir, you are sure you want me execute the prisoners?" It is the last line between us and a robot.
Posted by: Robby | August 21, 2010 5:11 AM
Ugh, Christian rock. If there were a god, he/she would most surely smite the sinners who dared perpetrate such an embarrassment.
The movie "Never Been Thawed" does a nice send-up on Christian rock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Q3SYVwhEk
Warning: not work safe.
Posted by: cfrost | August 21, 2010 6:04 AM
@53: "You thought it was going to be like in the commericials?"
Since when do commercials for the Army state that soldiers won't be punished for refusing to attend Christian concerts?
Posted by: daniel rotter | August 21, 2010 7:06 AM
Fuck KKKristianity and its idiot fucktard adherents.
Posted by: democommie | August 21, 2010 8:21 AM
It dawned on me this morning that this whole program suggests that someone has read the Milgram experiment and is putting its results into practice.
Of course, they appear to have skimmed over the details but hey ...
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 21, 2010 9:51 AM
In that very same state, Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote this in the Statute For Religious Freedom:
Posted by: Sean McCorkle | August 21, 2010 1:15 PM
Robby @62:
I just wanted to give that some more emphasis. Well said.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 21, 2010 9:06 PM
Little update. The person who came up with this 'Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concert Series', Maj. Gen. James E. Chambers, is no longer in charge of Fort Lee. He's been moved to be 'director for logistics' (which I think means he's in charge of a supply dump) on an Air Force base:
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13469
If you note the third assignment listed, he's been replaced by Maj. Gen. James L. Hodge. No idea if he's the same type of guy who feels the need to force the soldiers under his command to follow his own religious superstitions (or even if he has any), but let's hope not.
Posted by: Zmidponk | August 22, 2010 8:39 AM
Even in the British Army and Navy, and the Church of England is still the Established church by the way, the standard command on Sundays before Church Parade is "Roman Catholics and others, FALL OUT". "Others" then go off and either attend their own service or smoke or whatever. Any suggestion that such soldiers/sailors should do work would cause a mutiny.
In fact, such compulsory attendance at Christian services was an underlying cause of the Indian Mutiny. From which the British Armed forces learned not to do it again. Bismarck said "Sensible people learn from other people's mistakes". Sadly, it seems that the US military does not want to learn. There would be NO need for either the The Freedom From Religion Foundation or The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, if the officers of the US military respected their own Constitution(for a start) and their own rules and regulations. Unfortunately, there remains a pressing need for both those organisations.
On another thread(http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/08/20/option-for-u-s-troops-go-to-christian-concert-or-be-punished/), a sensible commenter called Ol’Froth wrote "Should have added, since this is the military, the remedy for violating the soldiers rights is simple…
The sergeant imposing the punishment is busted to private.
His Lieutenent is busted to private.
The lieutenent’s Captain is busted to private.
The Captain’s Major is busted to private.
The Major’s Lt. Colonel is busted to private.
The Lt. Colonel’s Colonel is busted to private.
The Colonel’s Brigader is busted to Private.
Do that ONCE, and the problem is solved".
This is probably true(for a given value of TEAPOT).
Chances of it happening; ZERO, sadly.
This is an ongoing issue in the US military. Prominent examples include;
a) The scandalous behavior in the Air Force Academy in Colorado involving proselytizing by Christian fundies.
b) The idiots handing out vernacular Bibles in Afghanistan.
c) Idiot General Boykin.
These incidents have damaged the reputation of the US military services.
These idiots are following a script of religious warfare, which puts them on the same side of the civilizational discourse as the Taliban and Al-Qaida.
Posted by: MacTurk | August 23, 2010 8:34 AM
For a minute I read that the same way you would say "Surgeon General" or "Inspector General".
Maybe we should appoint an Idiot General of the United States. This person would have overall authority over the generation of idiocy. Then we'd just tell all the amateur idiots to shut up and let the professional do his job.
Pat for USIG!
Posted by: DaveL | August 23, 2010 9:28 AM
How about this for a suggestion.
1) Abolish the Chaplaincy as part of the military
2) For all soldiers stationed outside a war zone give them the right to request up to two hours a week off base, which can be taken at any agreed time and used as the indivdual wants to visit church, mosque, brothel, family etc..
3) For soldiers in a war zone who cannot leave base except on duty allow embeded chaplains funded by their sending orghanisation on the same terms as embeded journalists, e.g subject to military control for security reasons but not part of the chain of command.
Posted by: Matty | August 23, 2010 10:05 AM
Did these people completely forget the first amendment!?
Someone needs to sit every evangelical christian and give them a stern talking to about personal rights, as well as a history lesson on oppression, and the fact that this country was not founded upon a religion nor was one single religion credited to its founding.
Court Marshal the entire commanding body, these people don't deserve their colors.
Posted by: ReBl | October 21, 2010 2:55 PM